New Orleans: The City

Although visitors naturally view the French Quarter as the focal point of New Orleans, for the city as a whole it is the Central Business District, or CBD as the locals call it. It is a fairly conventional high-rise downtown, full of office buildings and multiple representatives of every major hotel chain. The main drag that separates the CBD from the French Quarter is Canal Street, with its requisite stores selling vaguely hip-hop clothing at what they claim to be deep discounts and overpriced electronics shops full of dual-voltage radios and (still!) Pal-SECAM camcorders. With its oceanic width, streetcar tracks running down the middle, and a near-complete lack of any identifiably local businesses, Canal reminded me of nothing so much as San Francisco's Market Street. Go a few blocks up the street away from the river, and the building facades and the sidewalks, none too smooth to begin with, deteriorate further, and the Hiltons give way to Clarions, though a block-long monolith of luxury condos, converted from what looked like a turn of the last century theatre, loudly announces its availability with two-story-high banners, a bit out of place among cut-rate parking lots surrounded by rusting chicken wire.

Crossing Canal from our hotel (Courtyard Marriott at 124 St. Charles Ave., chosen for the pragmatic reason of a conference J. was attending) puts you on the edges of the French Quarter, and another block or two in on any of its main arteries -- Royal, Chartres or, if you make that mistake, Bourbon -- the New Orleans of both tourist brochures and Faulkner's Sketches explodes at you.

I should probably dispense with Bourbon Street quickly. I hated it. It wasn't the nightclubs (Hustler's was the only "brand" name I recognized, but there was plenty in the same vein) - that sort of thing does not bother me. It was the sheer level of noise, day and night. Barkers - a few scantily-clad women, but mostly obnoxious men with large signs - were literally at every door. Drunk crowds spilling into the streets from every bar (and every business that is not a gentlemen's club is a bar) at all hours. Music blaring through open doors and windows, bands frequently attempting, unsuccessfully, to drown one another out, resulting in a headache-inducing cacophony of grandiose proportions. I should mention that taken individually, most bands sounded fantastic. In a few minutes, we caught strains of blues, country and zydeco, all spectacularly performed. The sheer volume, however, combined with overwhelming crowds both indoors and out, scared us off from actually going in and giving them a proper listen.

A typical French Quarter exterior

Turn into any of the side streets, however, and you immediately find yourself in the New Orleans of legend. The architecture and overall feel of the place is completely unique. Despite the name, the style is predominantly Spanish, not French. The wrought-iron railings and posts that make the city famous are just the beginning. Flower-filled wraparound balconies, quaint interior courtyards (some occupied by stores or restaurants and therefore accessible to the passer-by), and cheerful Caribbean-inspired colors add up to create an almost fairy-tale atmosphere. Historic plaques abound. A house that was going to be offered to Napoleon after he was rescued from his exile on St. Helena (he died before the plan could be executed), and a blacksmith shop formerly used as headquarters by the pirate Jean Laffitte (who was going to do the rescuing) are but two that come to mind. Not surprisingly, both have been converted to bars, Napoleon's being the nicer of the two.

Napoleon's House

A fair number of buildings - one in ten, perhaps - is shuttered, either under renovation or simply unused, but there is no indication that all of them were rendered vacant by Katrina. The vast majority of these places date from the 1700s, and no doubt many needed work long before 2005.

At the center of the French Quarter is Jackson Square, with the St. Louis Cathedral and a statue of pre-presidential Andrew Jackson, but while the cathedral is impressive and the park surrounding Jackson is an idyllic place to while away some time on a nice day eating a muffaletta, the charm is definitely in the side streets.

Directly to the East of the French Quarter is the neighborhood of Faubourg-Marigny, almost as old as the Quarter itself and, from what I could gather, the first area into which the city expanded once it breached its original boundaries. The vibe could not be more different, however. The area is largely residential, and no house is taller than two stories, the predominant styles being the Creole cottage and the famous shotgun. The condition of the houses varies greatly, from hovels barely holding together to impeccably restored and outlandishly painted creampuffs. Some house bed-and-breakfasts with names like the Bohemian Armadillo. Unusual zoning, or, more likely, the ignorance of same (New Orleans' acquaintance with regulation is famously casual), placed a neighborhood bar or two on random corners. My personal favorite, though I did not go in, was an establishment called The John. Ghosts are plentiful here, too - a dilapidated house I stumbled upon, currently for sale, was once the residence of Lizzie Miles.

A house in Faubourg-Marigny

The Warehouse District, located to the South of the Quarter, is home to some museums and galleries and said to have suffered mightily at the hands of Katrina. We didn't take too good a look at it, as the only time we were there was at night in pouring rain, but even so, the luxury condos and lofts were obvious, and the reason we were there - dinner at a hyper-modern restaurant Cochon, more on which later - was telling from more than a culinary perspective. All this was post-Katrina construction. Clearly, neither the private developers (as it should be), nor the city government (as perhaps it should not) want to waste the commercial potential of the place. We certainly would not have found the same in the Lower Ninth.

While on the subject of Katrina, though we did not go on an official Katrina tour (had I known they were still doing them four years after the event, I would have signed up), we ended up getting a bit of an informal one from the van driver who took us to Slidell, LA, one morning to the location of a swamp tour we had booked. Even the outer edges of the CBD had been under a shocking fifteen feet of water, according to him. Aside from trashed sidewalks, the effects aren't immediately obvious to someone who doesn't know what to look for, but as the driver pointed out building after building, we realized that they were abandoned. Not enough time had passed for them to have become ruins, and perhaps the city is doing something to maintain a modicum of outward gentility to these places to prevent blight from snowballing, but once you've been shown one or two of these places, you start seeing them everywhere.

East New Orleans, through which we drove on the way up, was devastated, and is currently in an extremely uneven state of reconstruction. Here, both the abandonment and the renewal are glaring. Some of the houses are literally ruins -- caved-in roofs, gaping windows, eight-foot weeds in the yard. Commercial and office buildings are subtler, but still obvious - parking lots overgrown with grass, no lights or signs, and a strange patina of neglect even on those structures that had withstood the winds. You can tell the newly-built houses by their three-foot-high foundations, required by the useless new building code. Some of the apartment complexes are doing a booming business even though the rents are up by 60%, while others, though perfectly ordinary-looking on the outside, are uninhabitable and are waiting for the wrecking ball. According to our guide, some still have squatters living in them, left in peace by the authorities presumably because they would have nowhere to go if they were evicted. Our driver-guide himself had his house in Slidell completely destroyed; he and his wife spent time living in a FEMA trailer, and are now gradually building a new house. Semi-retired before Katrina, he is now working two jobs to pay for the reconstruction.

The fact that even the evidence of Katrina takes little away from the appeal of the less affected parts of the city is testament to New Orleans power and uniqueness. I found the entire vast Uptown area, located to the Southwest of the CBD and reached easily by the St. Charles Ave. street car, enjoyable. The Garden District, full of historic mansions enormous in scale and luxury, is the famous part, and worth seeing out for a glimpse of antebellum Louisiana (one house is now open for tours, the rest are privately owned but a self-guided walking tour with a good guidebook is still worth the time). But to some extent, the "normal" neighborhoods on either side of St. Charles and especially along Magazine Street, are more interesting because they are less special while still retaining significant local color. After seeing the Garden District, J. and I spent the better part of a day strolling along Magazine, checking out the antique shops, many of them with an unusually high concentration of mid-century modern design. St. Charles Ave. half a mile away, a major thoroughfare that roughly follows the curvature of the river from the CBD to the Tulane Campus, is probably the city's most mixed-use neighborhood, majestic apartment buildings sharing frontage with stores and restaurants, forest-green streetcars (originally build in 1925) completing the picture.

To be continued...

How not to play Beethoven: F.F. Guy at the Embassy of France

Friday night, J. and I joined our friend K.L. at the French Embassy to hear a performance of some Beethoven piano sonatas. The pianist was one François-Fréderic Guy, whom I had not heard of until then. He was actually performing the complete cycle of Beethoven sonatas, in chronological order, over a period of a couple of weeks. When K.L. first told me about it, my initial reaction was to try to hear every one. The complete Beethoven cycle performed live is an extremely rare event, the undertaking being so Promethean. I'm still kicking myself for not having gone to hear Robert Silverman do them a few years ago. The commitment on the part of the listener is equally great, however, so reason prevailed and we settled on last Friday's performance, where Guy was doing Nos. 22 - 26, No. 23 being, of course, the great Appassionata.

Good thing we didn't spend money on tickets for more than one of these. The concert was a huge disappointment. Guy played with no feeling or emotion whatsoever. There was no lyricism or subtlety to speak of. His tempos were way too fast (most fast works are usually played too fast, but that's a whole other discussion), he left no space between the notes, and as a result ended up glossing over every significant detail. Appassionata's gorgeous finale, while certainly fast, lives and dies by the relaxed fluidity of the performer's approach, but Guy hammered through it like an automaton. No. 25's Andante movement can be achingly beautiful in the right hands, but we heard none of that beauty on Friday. Guy seemed to want nothing better than to get to the next fast movement so he could so some more mindless shredding.

This kind of butchering of sublime music breaks my heart, and in the case of Beethoven sonatas - some of the greatest piano music of all time -- makes me angry. J., a lifelong musician and classical music fan, has inexplicably been skeptical about Beethoven's solo piano music, and Friday's concert has done nothing to change her mind. Thank you, Mr. Guy, for scaring off another potential fan.

Google

You know how Google sometimes modifies its logo on their home page to incorporate a graphic related to an anniversary of a historic event? I wonder why this week they chose to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street rather than the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Surely it wouldn't have been too difficult to come up with a cartoon of a crumbling graffiti-festooned wall, or, better yet, a disintegrating hammer and sickle.

Alberto Moravia, The Conformist

Warning: Spoilers follow.

Finished Alberto Moravia's The Conformist a few days ago. I picked up the book many years at a local bookstore's sidewalk sale. Until then, I had not even known that Bertolucci's brilliant 1970 film with Jean-Louis Tritignan as Marcello was based on a novel. I don't have too much to say about the book, but on the whole I enjoyed it. The style, or perhaps the translation, was off-putting at first - Marcello's every thought and emotion explained, with nothing left for us to infer or deduce. But it grew on me, and somehow the writing ended up being fairly powerful despite the overly literal style. I kept referring back to my memories of the film, of course, which probably made the novel more vivid for me than it otherwise would have been, but it also reminded me how many details of the film I had forgotten. It's definitely going on the re-watch list. It's probably worth pointing out that Bertolucci stuck to the book very closely until the end, but then diverged sharply - in the book, Marcello isn't even present at the scene of Quadri's murder. And for the life of me, I could not remember the very final scene, where Marcello and his family die when their car gets strafed by an Allied plane, in the film at all. Either Bertolucci chose to omit it - I can't imagine why, though, its absence changes the overall character of the work significantly - or my memory is worse than I realize.

Virginia Elections

I admit, with a fair amount of guilt, that I did not vote today in Virginia's gubernatorial and state house elections, even though on previous occasions, I have implored others to vote whenever possible. I simply could not bring myself to vote for a candidate who had views that are abhorrent to me in a deepest possible way, and since all candidates held at least one such view, well, there you have it. My equivalent of a vote of disapproval of all.

We realize that mathematically, the idea that each individual's single vote will affect the outcome of an election is absurd. I should concede here that if every voter took the previous sentence to heart, the system would collapse. But still, that is not why we vote, or at least not why I do. As I've said before, I vote because I can, while many millions of people around the world cannot, and because it is an opportunity to make a gesture of approval for a certain set of ideas and principles. The gesture is mostly to myself -- I don't go around shouting the names of the candidates I voted for and why I chose them. Still, I see it as a moral responsibility to make that gesture.

Needless to say, this becomes impossible when the likelihood of finding such a set of ideas and principles embodied in the stated opinions of a single candidate is pretty much nil. Yes, politics is the art of the possible, we've been told a thousand times, and that you pick the least of all evils, that you vote for the candidate whose "bad part" is less objectionable than the others'. And there have been occasions in the past where I have done that. But there is a limit. I believe that it is possible to reach a level of objectionableness beyond which my moral principles do not allow me to go, and I have reached it this year. Let's hope that for our society's sake, that does not become a pattern, though I frequently fear it it might.

Anne Appelbaum, GULAG: A History

A few of us will some day read Solzhenitsyn's magnum opus of Soviet forced labor camps, Gulag Archipelago. For the rest, there is Anne Appelbaum's GULAG: A History (Doubleday, 2003). The word "Gulag" has come to be synonymous with the camp system itself, and is even frequently misused to mean an individual camp, but is in fact an abbreviation for "Central Administration of Camps," the Soviet bureaucracy that ran the system. Though the KGB, and its predecessors OGPU and NKVD, have frequently vied for control of the camps with the Interior Ministry, the KGB won, as it did in most aspects of Soviet life, and in light of the fact that the KGB's archives were the only ones that were not opened to researchers after 1991, Appelbaum's study is as comprehensive and precise as we can hope to find until that situation changes.

Those who have no meaningful knowledge of Soviet camps will find more than they will have bargained for. It's all here - the unbearable weather of Russia's Arctic regions, appalling sanitation, starvation rations, inhumane working hours, and beyond-cruel punishments for the slightest disciplinary infractions. She does not skimp on details, some of which may come as a surprise even to those who think themselves knowledgeable. Prisoners on the verge of starvation who spend the last days of their lives crawling around garbage dumps in search of scarps. Women gang-raped literally to death on the transport ships plying the waters of the Russian Far East. It goes on.

The value of Appelbaum's research and writing, though, extends far beyond these topics, as valuable as they are. She masterfully analyzes the complex social structure of the camps - the informers, the bribery, the gangs and the rivalries among prisoners. What will no doubt come as a shock to many Western readers is the revelation that the line separating the guards from the guarded could, and frequently did, blur. Prisoners became guards with regularity, often going directly from one status to the other.

In the West, more often than not Soviet camps are mentioned in the same breath as political prisoners, so I am particularly grateful to Appelbaum for the attention she pays to the professional criminals that have always, even in the darkest days of political repression, constituted the majority of the camps' population. The Soviet Union having been a society under which the most minute aspects of an individual's life were controlled by the government, many readers do not realize that the country has always, even under Stalin, had a large class of full-time criminals, complete with its own code of ethics, distinctive style of dress and, famously, a patois that at times barely sounded like mainstream Russian. As a primer on this underworld, one could do a lot worse than Appelbaum's book.

Nor does she skimp on the government's administration of the camps and the dismal failures that usually accompanied it. From its inception in 1926, GULAG was always intended to be a bulwark of Stalin's economic policy, but in fact had not had a single profitable year in all of its existence. That does not surprise us today, of course, but what might is her revelation that also throughout its existence, the system was plagued with intense conflict between the central administrators in Moscow and the local commanders at the individual camps. The local bosses, expected to fulfill completely unreasonable production norms, and occasionally, Appelbaum is careful to note, out of genuine desire to improve their prisoners' lot, constantly harped on the bureaucrats for woefully inadequate supplies, lack of support, and the general fact that the bureaucrats simply did not get it.

Appelbaum's writing style is perfect for the topic. She is direct, clear, and most importantly, completely unsentimental. This is a documentary work based on research, and the lack of fuzzy, emotional language in no way diminishes its power or makes us appreciate the plight of the tens of millions of GULAG's victims any less. And her research is impressive to say the least. Communist apologists will no doubt find fault with it, citing, among other things, her reliance on the writing of Varlam Shalamov, who, while a survivor of the camps, has only published camp-themed fiction. But that's just squeaking of a discontented few. Remove Shalamov completely, and the book will lose no more than a few pages and none of its power.

In the closing chapters, Appelbaum does offer some thoughts on why the history of the camps has not played nearly as prominent a role in Russia's social and political discourse after 1991 as many have expected. More significantly, she takes a few pages to lament the West's relative indifference to what we can reasonably view as the largest case of mass murder, if not genocide, in history. Yes, nothing Appelbaum says in conclusion is different from Santayana's "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it," but of countless things we, as a civilization, would never want to repeat, the GULAG is right at the top, and in English at least, it has no better chronicler than Anne Appelbaum.

Road Trip 2009, Day Five, Part II

Our original plan was to come down the Western side of the state of Michigan and stop for a visit at two legendary breweries in the Grand Rapids area - Founders in Grand Rapids proper, and New Holland in Holland, MI, a few miles away. We were now completely off schedule, however. Determined to catch at least one, we headed for Founders. After an uneventful two and a half hours on US-131, we rolled into downtown Grand Rapids.

Founders, located in the warehouse district on the edge of downtown, turned out to be a block-long hangar, with several roll-top gates, all of them open, separating the cavernous interior from an equally capacious raised deck. At nine o'clock on a Tuesday, the place was well peopled with a stylish twenty-something crowd, but we had no trouble finding two seats at the end of the bar opposite the stage. A singer was performing, accompanying himself on guitar, but the place was so vast that we could barely hear him in our corner. Founders has made a reputation in recent years for being a hotbed of extreme beer, and they did not disappoint. They are most famous, or infamous, for a beer called KBS. It used to stand for Kentucky Bourbon Stout, but seeing as they were nowhere near Kentucky, authorities intervened. Thanks to our generous and enthusiastic bartended, we tasted it. A 11.2% ABV monster aged in Bourbon barrels, it was so intense that the ounce or so he poured for us was more than enough. I cannot imagine drinking even a snifter of the stuff, much less a pint. We had to be a bit careful, seeing as we still had a couple of hours of nighttime driving ahead of us, but I did enjoy a snifter of the Hand of Doom, which is founder's double IPA aged, once again, in Bourbon barrels (definitely a signature of the brewery). It was enormous - huge hops, huge fruit, big funk and pronounced alcohol (10.4% ABV). Evidently, it is not bottled, so we were glad we got to experience it at the source. There were many, many other fascinating-sounding beers on the blackboard, so we made a mental note to come back (the annual release of KBS in March is supposed to be worth attending), and 130 miles later, were back in Ann Arbor.